On Sunday, the NY Times published a damning indictment of what it called "a Pentagon information apparatus that has used [retired military] analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage":

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

Response to the piece thus far has ranged from smug ("the incestuous and appalling relationship") to dismissive ("Exclusive: Generals Know People at Pentagon") to somewhat paranoid ("Is there something else behind this story?").

Right now, many readers are muttering about the oddity of having a serving officer who writes for an advocacy organization  comment on this story - sort of like having Son of Sam comment on the Boston Strangler's media footprint. Fair enough. But stay with me for just a little bit longer.

It's not particularly surprising that DoD turns to retired military officers to help get its story out. Go to any of the conventions or symposia put together by the Association of the United States Army, for instance, and you'll see uniformed and civilian decision-makers rubbing elbows, often on panels that are discussing official policy. Many of the members of AUSA and other service-affiliated organizations wear pins that proudly proclaim "Still Serving!" Almost all of this happens in the public eye, and I agree with Goldfarb's assertion, above, that this isn't exactly news. Given the amount of time and money that the nation has invested in training these men and women, it actually makes a great deal of sense to tap into their expertise from time to time.

But what the Times article lays out goes far beyond this. As the authors make clear through both interviews and recently declassified documents, these retired officers were given privileged access to information not readily available to rest of the media, to say nothing of the general public. Although there was no explicit request for quid pro quo, it is fair to say that these officers understood that they weren't being given access (right down to official lists of talking points) because of their winning personalities. Nor did these men choose to disclose the special treatment they were receiving, or even the fact that in many cases, they were parroting official talking points verbatim.

By contrast, as a active duty officer, I am forbidden (and rightfully so) from using my access to official documents to further my writings in the public sphere. DoD has made it clear that anything falling within the For Official Use Only (FOUO) category is off-limits for serving milbloggers, even those who might be writing these that publicly support the administration's positions. This policy has even given new life to a previously dormant category: Sensitive but Unclassified. It is certainly true that this is not the only area where the rules are different for retired personnel (for instance, they have far more leeway in criticizing elected or appointed officials), but the disparity is still noteworthy. In the latter case, the distinction exists because it is hard to argue that the retirees are undermining their chain of command. It is hard to imagine a case where information is too sensitive to be released by serving members, but is perfectly acceptable to be divulged by a retiree.

By an odd coincidence, the article comes approximately two years after the so-called "Revolt of the Generals", where several senior retired officers publicly called for then-Secretary Rumsfeld's ouster. I was unimpressed then, as I wrote:

Welcome to the party, boys. Where ya been? ... I know, I know, you were still holding out hope for that third or fourth star. And after all, there was that cushy board of directors gig for General Dynamics or Lockheed Martin or KBR hanging in front of you - can't very well do that if you're biting the hand that feeds them, now can you?

You know, there's been a series of pieces over the last few months about how junior officers are leaving the service in droves. Many familiar reasons are cited: the hamster wheel of continuous deployments, lack of an ability to meet family needs, frustration with a well-entrenched bureaucracy. I would humbly add the above episode to the list. I think more and more junior officers see the kind of political and moral compromise that seems to come hand-in-glove with the attainment of senior rank, and want no part of it. What these men did is probably not illegal, and is almost certainly not abnormal, but it is unacceptable in a Republic where military institutions are supposed to be subordinate to civilian ones in every respect.